Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 August 31

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< August 30 << Jul | August | Sep >> September 1 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


August 31 edit

Request on 03:16:14, 31 August 2015 for assistance on Draft:Psychology of eating meat by FourViolas edit

It appears the draft I've written gives off SYNTHy "vibes", and reads like an essay or research paper. Per my reasoning on the talk page, I believe the specified problems are stylistic rather than substantial, but I'd love fresh eyes and evaluations either way. If you have spare time, you could look over some of my non-AfC submissions to check for similar problems: Graham technique, Hedareb people, Giordano Dance Chicago, Mary Cannon. Thanks! No need to {{talkback}}, or to wear your usual kid newbie gloves. FourViolas (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with that draft is that you have not taken a topic and written an article about it, you have taken an essay you wanted to write and given it a title. I have looked very briefly at the other articles you list, and while I can't vouch for their quality, I am confident that they don't suffer from that particular problem: they are all about definite topics. Maproom (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and perspective. Does the fact that all of the following are peer-reviewed published articles, written by research psychologists and specifically studying meat consumption, affect your impression that this subject does not exist as a "definite topic"?
They do not change my impression. Likewise, a dozen authoritative articles by respected journalists with titles like "Why you should vote Democrat" would not convince me that the topic was worthy of an encyclopedia article. Maproom (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is that analogy relevant? These sources are not hortatory opinion pieces; they are refereed analyses and surveys of rigorous research into the psychological factors of the act of eating meat, and are published in academic journals which could not long survive if they published partisan propaganda. They are scientists who are, according to expert peer review, objectively researching the psychology of eating meat or reviewing the work of other scientists in this field. WP:GNG requires, as I'm sure you know, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources; by any definition, the first source above, along with others from the article (Rozin 2010, Ogden 2010, etc), satisfy this criterion, which may not be refuted by WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
For parallel examples on which you're likely to have less of a personal opinion, compare the sources above and the 92 sources currently in the draft to Traffic psychology#References, Police psychology#References, Filipino psychology#References, and Indigenous psychology#References. FourViolas (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I am mostly convinced. Maproom (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's great to hear! I'd love any advice you could offer about how to improve the tone and content. FourViolas (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still see vegetarian PoV in the article. I'll give just one example. "Use of non-animal words such as "sirloin" and "hamburger" for meat helps to reduce the salience of meat's origins in animals". Yes, that's true, but the article is written as if their use is part of a strategy for dissociation. It isn't, it's just how language works. Wheat products also have names that people might not associate with wheat, such as "bread" and "flour", and that's not part of any sinister strategy. I suspect that the writer is a vegetarian, and is therefore poor at recognising vegetarian PoV, they just think they are right (and may well be right, I won't argue on that). Maproom (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree that the article could be read as anti-meat, and I'd welcome advice on how to improve that while staying true to sources. To give you an idea of how this might be hard, here's the relevant section of the peer-reviewed paper cited for that statement:

Dissociation

Individuals can also psychologically alter how much meat they perceive themselves to consume by dissociating the animal from the food product. According to Adams (1990), one way that individuals render animals absent from their consciousness is to change language about them as food products. Words like bacon, hamburger, and sirloin become substitutes for the animal flesh people consume, allowing omnivores to maintain the illusion that animals are not involved. As Bandura (1999) notes, such euphemistic labeling is often used to disguise objectionable activities.

Supporting this dissociation strategy, many consumers do not like to think that meat comes from a live animal (Mayfield et al., 2007), and this explains why the more meat resembles the actual animal, in terms of being red, bloody, and fatty, the more individuals are disgusted by it (Kubberod, Ueland, Tronstad, & Risvik, 2002). Pieces of meat that clearly remind consumers that they were from an animal (e.g., eyes, tongues, brains, etc.) are unwillingly handled by consumers (Kubberod et al., 2002). Explicit reminders of the animal origins of meat led shoppers to purchase less meat or prefer free range and organic meat (Hoogland et al., 2005).

You can see that the phenomenon is indeed presented as part of a "dissociation strategy" used to make meat less animal-related and less problematic, and it would be inaccurate and OR-ish to take it out of that context, even though your wheat example is well taken. Would it help to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as the above author did? I don't think the situation rises to the level of WP:Inaccuracy, so NPOV ought to be enough to resolve this. FourViolas (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm copying this section to the talk page. FourViolas (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:28:08, 31 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Chy syl edit


Hi Articles for Creation Team! Early August, I submitted an article Draft:TeachPitch to the Wikipedia Community. I was happy to get feedback from TimTrent that I had wrongly used the references and external links and encouraged to try again. I resubmitted the article- now referencing in the appropriate way - and was wondering two things: 1) Is it better now? 2) When it comes to the use of of sources you mentioned that they need to be notable, independent of each other and be present in abundance - I did some research and found a lot more on the topic some in English but also articles in Chinese, Spanish and French - are those valid as well? Or do they all need to be in English? Thank you very much for helping me out here. Any advice you can give me is very much appreciated:) Chy syl Chy syl (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Chy syl (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chy syl, while we do prefer English sources, you can use other languages too if English ones are lacking or of lesser quality. (It's quite easy for us to find reviewers who know languages such as Chinese, Spanish or French, if necessary.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:03:14, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Medicalphyls edit


Medicalphyls (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) What is the problem with this article? I think it is simple, point to point and easy to understand.[reply]

Hi Medicalphyls - the style is not like a Wikipedia article, I strongly recommend that you ask the subject specialists at WikiProject Medicine for assistance. The format and layout issues are easy to fix so don't worry about that at this stage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:16, 31 August 2015 review of submission by NeviRom edit


NeviRom (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I need assistance concerning Draft:AVS Video Converter. My article was declined due to lack of notability and reliable sources. I have added more sources such as books and articles in scientific journals, please review my article and references on the subject of notability, if it needs more editing.[reply]

You can resubmit your draft for review by clicking the blue Resubmit button in the red template at the top of the page. It will then be re-reviewed by an editor. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:22:03, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Medicalphyls edit


Medicalphyls (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I have rewrite the article and I will like to kindly inform you that all the sources mentioned here are quality references like Scott-Brown's Otorhinolaryngology. it is one of the best book available on ENT surgery and medicine. so please kindly check reviews and reply.[reply]

Hi again Medicalphyls, the problem is not the sources, it's the style of your writing. You've also been advised to request help from WikiProject Medicine - please do so. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

helloRoger (Dodger67) thank you for your reply and advice. I appreciate that. Medicalphyls —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:06, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Cortknoxx edit


I would like to get my wiki page approved. Made some changes..I want to get the user: taken off of the name when searching in google.


Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortknoxx (talk • contribs) 16:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have written the draft on your userpage which is why it's not the full name, and has user: at the beginning of it. I have moved it to the draft namespace, and submitted it for you. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:28, 31 August 2015 review of submission by TCVCJ edit

I wrote an article on the Coal Miners' Memorial in Richlands Tazewell County VA and saved the page so I could go back and work on it some more before I submitted it - now I cannot find it! Can someone help me? Thank you!TCVCJ (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC) TCVCJ (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did you write it? as your last contribution on your account before your post was on 6 August. Are you sure you saved it to Wikipedia, or alternatively were you logged into a different account (or not logged in at all?)
The only page I can see that matches, is a draft started in 2010 by User:SheepNotGoats - Happysailor (Talk) 17:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I wrote the article on Thursday, August 20th. It's possible I was not logged in - but I surely thought I was! So, should I just rewrite the whole thing and try again? I was so pleased that I had what I thought were good references and I had put them within the body of the article - but I'll try again if that's my only alternative. Thank you for your help!TCVCJ (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TCVCJ (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:59:26, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Cortknoxx edit


I did not intend to put page in draft mode as people cannot read as they used to bcause the page has been moved. Please return bacjk to user if possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortknoxx (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about Draft:Cort Knoxx? If so, please read the explanations there... including the links... about why the page is in Draft space and what you can do about it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:35:04, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Keshakoko1 edit


Keshakoko1 (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC) On August 25, 2015, I did edit and saved it and resubmitted. I corrected what wiki said I needed to do. This is so complicated. I've done what you asked and still do not know WHY I can't get this through? I've been messing with this since May. Can someone please review and post? Thanks![reply]

Chris

Keshakoko1, I declined your draft for two reasons:first, because it does not have sufficient inline citations. Inline citations must be included in biographies of living persons. For example, the draft claims that he won the Golden Halo Lifetime Achievement Award in 2014 - which of the references actually says this? A user should not have to read every reference just to verify that he did indeed with the award. See WP:REFB for more information about inserting references into the body of the text (I highly suggest using the refToolbar).
Second, the draft (at the time) did not have any references that talked about Geller in any great detail. The Golden Rule states that there must be significant coverage of an individual. In other words, if no one has taken the time to write about Geller, then he shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. I see you have added a few more links to the page, and have not looked at them yet, so I honestly couldn't say whether you have fixed that problem. However, while you are adding the inline citations I highly suggest considering the references and seeing if they meet the "significant coverage" criteria.
As a small addendum to my second point - a short "name-drop" reference can be used without issue for things like Awards receipts (provided they are from reliable sources) but they do not do anything to demonstrate notability. I hope this clears things up. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:47:49, 31 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sleaver2 edit



Answer already received.

Sleaver2 (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2015_August_31&oldid=679989163"